At a crossroads with things here.
Options
mantis
Posts: 17,056
Hello all,
I have learned a strange thing and not sure if I believe it or it might be true. From my experience with high rez music including SACD and DVD AUDIO I have felt in general that they usually sound better then the CD. But not all of them which leans towards some truth behind what I just learned. It hurts me to even consider it but there might be some truth to 16 bit 44.1 might be all that is required to hear everything that can be digitally recorded and then played back.
This is a topic I felt a lot of you have a passion for and might know even more then I do so I ask for experience facts about this topic.
It is true that 16 bits and 44.1 is all you need to experience sound with the limitations of the human hearing?
If that is true then why do studio's use 24 bit and higher sample rates to capture the sound? If 16 bits is all you need I can't see any reason why you would need 24 bit.
Is our More is better getting in the way?
Also if 16 bit is all you need then why does Dolby Labs use 24 bit? When you playback Dolby Digital True HD it's in 24 bit 96 if there is not human ability to hear the bigger storage container I'll refer to high rez as then why have it? Is it just to charge us more and make us spend countless dollars on new equipment new software etc?
Think before you respond and I think this could be an excellent discussion.
I have learned a strange thing and not sure if I believe it or it might be true. From my experience with high rez music including SACD and DVD AUDIO I have felt in general that they usually sound better then the CD. But not all of them which leans towards some truth behind what I just learned. It hurts me to even consider it but there might be some truth to 16 bit 44.1 might be all that is required to hear everything that can be digitally recorded and then played back.
This is a topic I felt a lot of you have a passion for and might know even more then I do so I ask for experience facts about this topic.
It is true that 16 bits and 44.1 is all you need to experience sound with the limitations of the human hearing?
If that is true then why do studio's use 24 bit and higher sample rates to capture the sound? If 16 bits is all you need I can't see any reason why you would need 24 bit.
Is our More is better getting in the way?
Also if 16 bit is all you need then why does Dolby Labs use 24 bit? When you playback Dolby Digital True HD it's in 24 bit 96 if there is not human ability to hear the bigger storage container I'll refer to high rez as then why have it? Is it just to charge us more and make us spend countless dollars on new equipment new software etc?
Think before you respond and I think this could be an excellent discussion.
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
Comments
-
It is true that 16 bit audio is capable of producing a broader frequency range than most people have the capability of perceiving given aging ears and the limits of perfect human hearing. It is also true that 16 bit audio was selected as the standard for consumer audio use back in the 1970s because it was good enough for its intended purpose and around 74 minutes of music would fit on a single compact disc.
It is also inarguable that 24 bit audio covers the same human hearing range in terms of audible frequencies, but within that range 24 bit audio CAN present more information to a listener than 16 bit audio if the information is there. It's that potential for difference in information amounts, not the extremes of frequency range, that makes the difference in the end. That's why 24 bit audio tracks CAN sound smoother than 16 bit audio on a high resolution audio system.
Here's an experiment to consider. Rip a CD to WAV files and then convert those 16 bit WAV files to DSD files and 320k MP3 files using JRiver or something similar. Play back all three types on a high quality stereo system with a DSD capable DAC and see if they sound different to you. Doesn't cost anything. Next, find a 24/192 download of the same CD and play back the WAV and 24 bit tracks through the same DAC to see if they sound different to you. If you don't notice a difference in any of the formats that's worth while to you...mission accomplished. Just use whatever's least expensive. Experimenting is half the fun.
If the question is about audio formats for DVD and Blu Ray, remember that the sound quality on those is greatly affected by the amount of compression the movie studios decided to use. It's probably impossible with those formats to know if what's on the disc is the best quality that the studios could put on there if they chose to. Those are even easier to compare though. Just see how a DVD sounds in comparison to the same thing on Blu Ray. -
I was always under the impression the more bits the closer it was to a real sine wave like analog.
I also agree with @Emlyn in the first paragraph. The CD time was chosen because the Sony inventor favorite song had to fit on the CD. It was something classical IIRC. -
DSD is only 1 bit, but 2.8MHz sampling rate. The sampling rate creates the curve.
FWIW, I believe the source recording format/media comes into play here. Analog recording is limited to 16 bits, so extrapolating such a 'vintage' source beyond that is...artificial. Conversely, a 'modern' digital recording has much more room for manipulation and bit depth.
I question how a streaming music service, or re-seller of vintage hi-res files, can go beyond 16 bits. This is an honest technical question.Post edited by jdjohn on"This may not matter to you, but it does to me for various reasons, many of them illogical or irrational, but the vinyl hobby is not really logical or rational..." - member on Vinyl Engine
"Sometimes I do what I want to do. The rest of the time, I do what I have to." - Cicero, in Gladiator
Regarding collectibles: "It's not who gets it. It's who gets stuck with it." - Jimmy Fallon -
Could be that those few superior CD’s had a better mastering process.
Saw a special on PBS, called “The Producers”, I believe that involved the recording industry. In the segment with Adele’s producer, you could see the meters in the near background bouncing back and forth. Spent a lot of time in the red.
I don’t think the number of bits, frequency sampling, or format that was chosen would make much of a difference, if that was the end product. -
DSD is only 1 bit, but 2.8MHz sampling rate. The sampling rate creates the curve.
OK the bits are responsible for the range 20hz to 20khz ? So the more bits are where say the 5hz to 50khz come into play? So going from 44.1khz to 2.8mhz is where the sine wave gets more analog like? Gosh it has been a decade or more since I had to think about all this lol
Yes the mastering does make all the difference, I've had some very good CD's and some not so good sounding SACD's just because the original master was not the best and you can only clean up so much before you loose too much. The old disclaimer on CD's does come into play. The limitations of the original tape come into play.
-
CD quality and up can sound fantastic as well as like crap. That goes for vinyl too.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I don’t remember the details, but digital music is better understood now than in the early 70s. While a CD will handle the frequency range from 20 to 22.05 kHz, the sound we experience extends beyond that. As has been stated, the real issue is the recording quality. All things being equal, a high-res file will sound better than a CD. A good example I have found is the Pale Emperor by Marilyn Manson. I first bought the CD, and liked it so much that I bought the high-res download, and was amazed at how much better the high-res version is compared to the CD. Of course, this all depends on the gear being used for playing the music.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
ladder dac's in the beginning were very expensive and they may not of had the ability to go beyond 16 bits at the time. One may need to consider that as well.
They AFAIK do not even use ladder dac's at all anymore. It is all 1bit on or off processing. -
Sorry for double-posting, but I edited/appended my earlier post as follows:
"FWIW, I believe the source recording format/media comes into play here. Analog recording is limited to 16 bits, so extrapolating such a 'vintage' source beyond that is...artificial. Conversely, a 'modern' digital recording has much more room for manipulation and bit depth.
I question how a streaming music service, or re-seller of vintage hi-res files, can go beyond 16 bits. This is an honest technical question."
It makes me wonder from where/how hi-res services source their files, and I'm certain that it varies."This may not matter to you, but it does to me for various reasons, many of them illogical or irrational, but the vinyl hobby is not really logical or rational..." - member on Vinyl Engine
"Sometimes I do what I want to do. The rest of the time, I do what I have to." - Cicero, in Gladiator
Regarding collectibles: "It's not who gets it. It's who gets stuck with it." - Jimmy Fallon -
I have Burmester Redbook CD's that sound better than my SACD's and DVD-A's. I also have the vice versa. I have 180g Mo-Fi LP's that blow the socks out of a DCC recording and vice versa. I have a DVD-A that is the best recording of Mick Fleetwood's "Rumors" album I have heard to date on a cheap player versus a Mo-Fi 180g half speed LP heard on a Vandersteen based 250K system. No vice versa on that one.
Point being, it ALL depends on the recording, the equipment and process used, mixing and mastering techniques (along with distances and techniques used to record) used upstream of a format before even hitting a system.
Then you have your playback system.
Then you have your room.
Then everyone has their own ears.
My advice? Forget all of the aforementioned and chase the best end result as to what hits your ears, regardless of everything else that affects everything else.
Tom~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
@jdjohn I believe it is a lot like "up-converting" standard def TV to HD just much more of the same bits. This is why I have a problem with some stuff. All one needs it seems is the be able to inset the flag so to speak to trip that action in the program.
Am I wrong? -
I have a DVD-A that is the best recording of Mick Fleetwood's "Rumors" album I have heard to date.
Tom
I have it as well and I do agree it sounds much better than the SACD and the SACD is no slouch. I loved it on my multichannel surround system... sadly it is now gone.
-
Most ‘old’ music was digitally saved as 16 bit, but I believe starting in the 70s/80s studios went to 24 bit.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
@pitdogg2 Dude, I cannot disagree with any of what you've said. Frankly, I can't fully wrap my brain around the math involved, so IMO we are stuck with just finding what is AVAILABLE and sounds best.
Having said that...IF I can find a good, quality vinyl pressing of a record I want, I'll take that every time. Maybe I just want to justify my investment in vinyl playback, or maybe it simply sounds better...only the listener can say. But consider this: "analog media is composed of molecules, the smallest microscopic structure represents the smallest quantization unit of the recorded signal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording"This may not matter to you, but it does to me for various reasons, many of them illogical or irrational, but the vinyl hobby is not really logical or rational..." - member on Vinyl Engine
"Sometimes I do what I want to do. The rest of the time, I do what I have to." - Cicero, in Gladiator
Regarding collectibles: "It's not who gets it. It's who gets stuck with it." - Jimmy Fallon -
CD quality and up can sound fantastic as well as like crap. That goes for vinyl too.
^^^^^^^^
THIS.
Learn it. Know it. Live it.
The format is about potential........how it actually sounds is about the recording/mastering process.
BDT
I plan for the future. - F1Nut -
Learn it. Know it. Live it.
HAHAHAHA I just posted this elsewhere last week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8E7_u2qgjE -
Don't forget the early (and abandoned) 3M/Soundstream digital recorder(s) used for early 'digital' recordings mixed, mastered and released in analog formats (e.g., the Telarc digital LPs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream
https://www.mixonline.com/technology/1978-3m-digital-audio-mastering-system-377974
FWIW, I (still) think most of the harm is done to digital audio in the analog domain -- to wit, the low pass filters applied to get the processing "hash" out of the audio signal, and
- particularly - the analog output stages that feed signal to the analog preamp/amplifier. That is where it is important not to scrimp.
There are some glorious sounding 'Redbook' CDs around my house, I'd opine.
-
Beethovens 5th I believe.I was always under the impression the more bits the closer it was to a real sine wave like analog.
I also agree with @Emlyn in the first paragraph. The CD time was chosen because the Sony inventor favorite song had to fit on the CD. It was something classical IIRC.
Speakers: Polk Lsim, ATC SCM19 v2, NHT SuperzeroSpeaker Cables: DH Labs, Transparent, Wireworld, Canare, Monster: Beer budget, Bose ears -
Beethovens 5th I believe.I was always under the impression the more bits the closer it was to a real sine wave like analog.
I also agree with @Emlyn in the first paragraph. The CD time was chosen because the Sony inventor favorite song had to fit on the CD. It was something classical IIRC.
It was his 9th Symphony. I think it clocks in at 70 minutes.
EDIT: 74 minutes. Sheeyoot, I was off by a whopping 240 seconds.
-
Right! Memory failed.
I'm in the camp of if you cannot hear a difference, there isn't.
You will save a lot of money. I can easily hear a difference.
Is it bit depth or the master? Answer: yes!
Speakers: Polk Lsim, ATC SCM19 v2, NHT SuperzeroSpeaker Cables: DH Labs, Transparent, Wireworld, Canare, Monster: Beer budget, Bose ears -
]I have a DVD-A that is the best recording of Mick Fleetwood's "Rumors" album I have heard to date.
Tom
Mick Fleetwood's "Rumours" album ?!?
umm, weren't there some other cokeheads musicians on that rekkid?
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »
I have heard those rumours but it's still a mystery to me. Tusk something. -
Do all turntables sound the same? Cd players? Network players? Of course not but when we talk about different bit rates the bit that matters is your playback gear. If it isn't capable of or allowing one to hear and enjoy higher bit rate files than it really won't matter one bit as 16 bit 44.1 kHz will sound the same as most upsampled files do with avg gear.. I've had plenty of time to test this on many digital players but no opinion on turntables as they make me dizzy and I never listen to CDs. I'll admit I'm spoiled but this fourn and some of its members helped me get there.
Thanks for that🎩"if it's not fun, it's not worth it & remember folks, "It's All About The Music"!!
***************************** -
This is all very very subjective correct?
I know that some folks who have heard my system, do not like it, doesn't worry me, as I love my system. But some of those same folks like systems that I know (from listening to the same type speakers) I would not like. To each is own. The "toe tapping" statement should really be the foundation here. Which is why I believe this statement..Don’t chase file types. Chase good sound.
..is paramount. I have found myself guilty of chasing file types and measurements before. To say its a rabbit hole is an understatement.
I know this much as it relates to some of the discussion above:
Before I got the Auralic Vega G1, the turntable setup I have - with cart, phono pre, mods - beat the Cambridge CXN V2 in almost every category with the right pressings and recordings - pound for pound.
After getting the G1, the opposite is true. Of course some digital recordings are terrible as some pressings are. But with the right reference tracks from both sources, for my setup currently, digital (mostly ripped FLAC 44.1 files) wins. -
Back when sacd came out, I had the symphonic line klarheit II CD player which just played standard Redbook. We compared a mid level sacd player to it and the symphonic line smoked it.
Agree that if your source player is trash then it dosnt matter- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit. -
mhardy6647 wrote: »
I have heard those rumours but it's still a mystery to me. Tusk something.
How're the fall colors up there? Bare Trees yet?
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »mhardy6647 wrote: »
I have heard those rumours but it's still a mystery to me. Tusk something.
How're the fall colors up there? Bare Trees yet?
I'm afraid all of the Future Games will be winter sports. -
Wish it was that way here - still 95F as a high
-
joecoulson wrote: »Wish it was that way here - still 95F as a high
yep same here in central texasLiving Room 2.2: Usher BE-718 "tiny dancers"; Dual DIY Dayton audio RSS210HF-4 Subs with Dayton SPA-250 amps; Arcam SA30; Musical Fidelity A308; Sony UBP-x1000es; Squeezebox Touch with Bolder Power Supply
Game Room 5.1.4: Denon AVR-X4200w; Sony UBP-x700; Definitive Technology Power Monitor 900 mains, CLR-3000 center, StudioMonitor 350 surrounds, ProMonitor 800 atmos x4; Sub - Monoprice Monolith 15in THX Ultra
Bedroom 2.1Cambridge Azur 551r; Polk RT25i; ACI Titan Subwoofer -
You dug that out of the closet huh.
I do agree however that the recording/mastering is more important then the actual format it's on.
Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
